Ed Komarnicki

[Telecommunications Act, October 20th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I want to add my comments to the debate on the do not call list or registry. I can say there is no question that most Canadians are favourably disposed to some type of limitation to unsolicited calls.

I received a call from a constituent complaining about receiving a call that was unsolicited, how she was treated on the phone and some of the issues that she had with that particular call. She felt that, at a very minimum, these callers should identify themselves and indicate on whose behalf they are calling. That is part of the amendment that my party and the NDP were able to achieve through committee.

If Canadians were asked whether they like to be interrupted during their supper with a call, to go through what sometimes takes a considerable period of time, many would find it to be somewhat of a nuisance and an inconvenience and would choose not to participate in that type of phone call. However, at the same time, there are some legitimate reasons for people wanting to call, such as charities and others, that not only provide a service to the community but provide a useful service to particular organizations. The main way they raise funds is through that means. Therefore there is a balanced approach that needs to be taken.

I would like to go through some of the background in relation to the composition of this bill that is of major concern to me. When we look at the bill as it has been put together, it was very much a skeletal bill in the first instance. We are dealing with a registry and as soon as the word “registry” is mentioned, it conjures up all types of red flags simply because we have the gun registry that has cost millions of dollars, some would say billions of dollars, through administration. Perhaps part of that is due to a lack of direction or understanding of what the scope and involvement of the registry should be, what it needs to do, what its objectives are, what it hopes to attain and those kinds of things. Perhaps it was not well thought out.

I found that when this particular bill was first introduced by the government, it did not have any rules and regulations nor did it say what the objects of policy were. It had two scant paragraphs and basically abdicated that responsibility to the CRTC. To me, that is irresponsible, bordering on perhaps wilful neglect and even recklessness, not to have the House debate and set in place how this do not call registry ought to work and what the parameters of it might be. It is something that the House should take upon itself to understand. It should be the House that conducts inquiries and hearings to obtain input from the public, the players and the stakeholders and then decide how policy is to be made.

Instead, the initial bill, before its many amendments, simply provided that the commission would administer the databases or information, the administrative or operational systems, and it would determine any matter and make any order with respect to the databases or the administrative or operational systems. In fact, what it has basically said is that it will give this whole chore over to the CRTC and let it decide how it is going to be operated and what it may do.

Remarkably, the CRTC itself, through its own people, have said that it would just as soon not have that responsibility. The vice-president has indicated that the CRTC would like to receive direction on or some guidance from Parliament by way of legislation, an act or regulations. They feel that this was being imposed upon them. Even the press release that accompanied the bill said that the commission would hold hearings throughout the country to see what the public might want and how this system might operate compared to other systems to see how it should work administratively.

It is remarkable that the government would totally abdicate its responsibility to a commission that is not elected, that is appointed, that is not answerable to the public, has no scope of reference and has no particular known mandate. Anything could happen with that particular direction taken by that committee or group and Parliament would have to pay for it. It is like writing a blank cheque and telling people to do what they want to do and, when they decide what to do and how they want to do it, then Parliament would pay the bill. Why would the government take that kind of irresponsible approach to such a fundamental issue?

The reason the government has taken that approach is because it knows it is a publically sensitive issue that the majority of the public wants. The polling that has been done shows that 90% or better of the people want to have some sort of a do not call registry. Environics and others have shown that the majority of people would publically register and they want the government to pay attention to it. With an election looming and the government wanting to stay in power, which is primarily governed by polls, it took a knee-jerk, half-baked reaction and said that it would set up a registry, even though it did not know how it would work. It said that it wanted people to know for public relations purposes that there will be a registry, that people will be able to call and somehow it will work. It is not sure how it will work but someone else will decide and it will write the cheque.

That is irresponsible in light of the scandals we have seen, the sponsorship abuse of funds and funds being spent for little or no value. In light of the gun registry and the overspending that has taken place there, how could a responsible government simply abdicate in this particular way? It has no idea what it is going to cost to administer it.

It says that the CRTC will be able to set the rates on what telemarketers or those who make the calls will have to pay for the direct administration. We do not know what that will be or what it will cost but even if that portion of it is passed on to the telemarketers, one way or another it will end up in the hands of the paying consumer because the costs will have to be paid.

What about the indirect costs? When I look at how the system is set up it is obvious that administrative personnel will be needed. It talks about the ability of the CRTC to delegate through its commission the authority it has to another person, so it is even beyond just the commission. It would need to designate persons who would look after violations of whatever the regulations might be, and we do not know today what they are. These persons, called the notice of violation people, would administer the act.

We know that if there is a person called the notice of violation person, he or she would need to have an administrative staff and an office that is equipped. It says that the person may enter into a place where he or she believes on reasonable grounds anything is going on that is relevant to the enforcement of the act but they need to get consent. If they do not get consent they would have to apply ex parte by application to a justice.

Now we would need to have a judge, a lawyer and, not just a notice of violation person, but other people to administer this. They say that if these people need to enter into a place that may require some force, we would then have to involve peace officers. The person who is the object of this would have an opportunity to make representation to a commission about the whole process. Now we would need a commission to administer that and it would decide whether an offence was committed on a balance of probabilities.

If the person who applies before the commission does not like what he or she hears, they would have the right to a review and then a right to an appeal. Now we would need a review panel and an appeal panel and, of course, these panels, these commissions, are filled by people who are appointed by orders in council, all at a salary of somewhere between $100,000 and $200,000 or more, and it continues.

We all know there is administrative law that comes into play so that if there is some issue with respect to the commission, the review panel or the appeal panel, they can go to the Federal Court as well.

It is a costly process but this costly process is tied into legislation that initially did not have a frame of reference, a scope or an objective and did not say how the objective would be achieved. It had no policy consideration at all. To me, that is an abdication of responsibility. We find it more and more that the government is reacting by abdicating to the courts, tribunals and commissions when it should be deciding things here in this place.

We find that the rationale of why this is happening is because the end result, which is staying in power and clinging to power, is what matters more than substantive legislation that is good for the country.

If the poll says that it is a good venture, the government will take a step and go in that direction, without knowing where it is actually going, to meet the immediate short term needs and benefits for long term pain without thinking it through. Away the government goes and introduces an act without telling anyone how it will work or where it is going just so it can say that it has addressed the issue. That is how the government has been governing. It is a lack of direction and a lack of steering. It is saying that someone else will decide our destiny and we will pay the bill. That is what is wrong with the way the government has approached this particular aspect of it.

Fortunately, the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party were able to make a number of amendments in committee in such a fashion that at least some semblance of order was put back into the legislation. At least we have an amendment that says that this matter must be brought back to the House within three years for review to see how well it is working or not working. We have also exempted certain groups, such as charities, political parties, candidates, riding associations, surveys and newspapers. Those exemptions were not in the initial bill. The government simply said that it would see what the board does.

I think that is wrong and it is the wrong direction. Fortunately, we were able to beef up the bill sufficiently so that we can at least support it at this stage.

[Canada Labour Code, October 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the singular objective of ensuring safety and discussing safety issues with respect to pregnant mothers and nursing mothers is one that we think is worthy of debate and should be debated. There is no doubt that the issue would be better dealt with in the context of a larger review than presently is being conducted by Professor Arthurs.

I look at the present legislation and what it provides. It allows a pregnant or nursing worker to ask her employer, during the period from the beginning of her pregnancy to the end of the 24th week following birth, to modify her current job functions or reassign her to another job if continuing in her job poses a health risk to her, her fetus or her baby.

The legislation that the member proposes and the one that we have now is similar. The request must be accompanied with a medical certificate from a medical practitioner. While working in a modified or reassigned job, the employee is entitled to the same salary she earned in her usual job. It is only in the event that the employer is unable to modify or reassign an employee, the employee may ask for leave with pay until such time that the employer informs her in writing that it is not reasonably practical to modify her job functions or to reassign her. Thereafter the leave is unpaid.

The legislation that the member proposes to bring through to the House, in kind of a circuitous fashion, is to incorporate what presently exists in Quebec and does not exist in any other province. Saskatchewan has some peculiar legislation, but it does not deal with compensation.

For that period where under the Canada Labour Code the employee would remain unpaid in Quebec, that employee would receive continuing payments which in our estimation would be about $6,230 per pregnant or nursing mother. Based on the number of federal employees in Quebec, we would anticipate that it would be about an additional $12.3 million. If one were to extrapolate that throughout the nation of Canada, that would be about $59 million to $60 million. The objective itself is fine. However, the way the member proposes the bill to proceed causes me some concern. It is worthy of discussion. It should go to committee and be discussed in the context of what is happening.

We will support the bill for that purpose, to come to fruition through a lively exchange in committee and with the opportunity for stakeholders to present their views as well. However, the act probably could better be styled the Canada labour constitutional federal provincial jurisdictional issues act for that is essentially what is at the heart of the bill.

The bill raises some very significant jurisdictional issues that overshadow the legitimate concerns relating to the matter of pregnant or nursing mothers who find themselves in the workforce. It also overshadows the protection and compensation they can expect. If the bill were really concerned primarily with pregnant or nursing mothers, it would have been drafted with those concerns in mind and it would have dealt with the issue on a national basis as opposed to a province by province basis.

It is my proposal that the bill should be amended where the final product deals with the specific issue, but is not allowed simply to do through the back door what it would not do through the front door. I take exception to what is being attempted in the bill in terms of subjecting federal supremacy in matters of federal jurisdiction to the legislative purview of the provinces in areas of provincial jurisdiction. This is not withstanding that I believe there is considerable merit to better protection and more extensive financial coverage to pregnant and nursing mothers, an aspect of the legislation that is supportable and indeed laudable.

Let me deal with the jurisdictional issues first. When one looks at the bill, it indicates that an employee may avail herself of the legislation of the province where she works. What we find is provincial legislation that deals either with occupational health and safety or other matters. It depends where one works or where one resides and works as to whether one has a benefit. There is no doubt in my mind that if we are dealing with issues of safety, if we are dealing with issues with concern to the health of the mother of the child, or the fetus, the same standards should be set across this nation and not province by province and there should not be any discrimination depending upon where one lives.

This legislation also indicates that this right may be exercised by application to the provincial agency administering the provincial legislation. This is simply an administrative matter. It also requires the federal government to enter into an agreement with the provincial government to determine the administrative and financial terms resulting from the application.

It would seem to me as a very minimum the House should require that any bill that automatically amends the Canada Labour Code be brought before it for members to affirm it or to agree with its content. That should be a required amendment.

If the legislation intended to deal specifically with pregnant and nursing mothers, why was it not so styled? Instead, what we have is the automatic imposition of provincial occupational health and safety laws on federally regulated employees in each particular province.

The Supreme Court of Canada has held that matters of health and safety and accident prevention in respect of federal undertakings bear directly upon the management and operation of the federal undertakings and are matters of federal jurisdiction. The court has also held that legislative delegations involving a delegation of law-making power from Parliament to a province would be unconstitutional unless the delegation was purely an administrative delegation where the provinces were given authority to administer certain federal legislation.

I am afraid that what is happening here is not an administrative matter. It actually allows the provinces to legislate and make federal laws in the areas that apply to federal undertakings.

A constitutional alternative would be for the federal government to incorporate provincial legislation by reference, but in most common situations the legislation is in existing form so we can understand and know what it encompasses. What we have here is anticipatory incorporation by reference. That is, each time a province amends its legislation, it also has the effect of amending federal legislation, and therein lies the danger. It is a principle that should not be used.

This House and its parliamentarians should not subject themselves to provincial legislation in advance of knowing what it is or having the opportunity to review it or to debate the merits of it or its effect or impact on the nation and matters of federal undertakings. Also, it should not differ from province to province or where one lives.

Having said that, as I mentioned before, the specific objective of the legislation has merit. It is one that is supportable, but this can be done by formulating new language that reproduces essentially the existing provincial legislation that we are now aware of and by making it applicable nationally if that is where we want to go. Simply put, I would say to set out the additional protection that is desired for pregnant and nursing employees and let us debate that issue.

As flawed as this legislation is and as significant as the pitfalls are and notwithstanding the standards are not uniformly applied throughout every province and territory of this great nation, my position is that the issue itself is a social issue of national concern that relates to the health and safety of mothers, the newborn, and interesting to note, the fetus.

This special social issue is worthy of debate. The bill should at least go to committee so debate can take place there. It is my view that if the social objective is to be preserved, many significant amendments need to be made to the bill as it now exists. It also should have the input of those who may be affected by the proposed legislation. It should have a far wider audience than has been allowed or can be allowed in a private member's bill.

It is with some trepidation that we think this matter should go back for further debate. It concerns me that what we are attempting by this bill is to really incorporate by reference provincial legislation into federal law without the House even knowing what that legislation may be. It is a dangerous course of action. It is something which we certainly should not adopt without very significant and severe amendments. It would be most unseemly that the House would allow legislation to pass without the House doing its due diligence by looking at the legislation particularly, by hearing from the various interest groups, by making an assessment, and being held accountable to the populace at large in this great nation of ours, as opposed to having provinces legislate in such a fashion that would automatically change the laws of this country as soon as one province took a step.

That is the wrong direction in which to be headed. Certainly that portion of the bill would have to be remade. In fact, the bill would have to be reconstructed in a very significant way for it to be able to proceed on any basis.

[Canada Labour Code, October 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have questions I would like to pose to the proponent of the bill. One point is that the bill could have quite easily addressed the issue of safety concerns for pregnant mothers, their fetuses or their unborn children across the nation, from province to province, but this specific legislation talks about having the employee avail herself of the legislation in the province where she works, which is something very different from the present. Nowhere in the balance of the provinces of Canada is this particular compensation paid.

I think the objective of the bill is good and the principle behind it is fair and is worthy of debate, but if it were to pass we would find that it would be applicable with respect to a particular province only; it would distinguish between mothers and fetuses and babies across the other provinces. More important, it would make every provincial law that is passed hereafter in any province a matter of federal jurisdiction under the Canada Labour Code, without any review by this House or by anyone who is a member of Parliament. The provinces would be dictating what is happening in the Canada Labour Code with respect to federal undertakings.

If the proponent had the issue of the safety of mothers in mind, why was the bill not designed specifically to deal with that issue, not federal-provincial jurisdiction?

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Due to weather conditions, harvest and fall operations on the prairies will extend into late October and November.

Farmers require own use permits in order to purchase Clearout 41, a glyphosate product available to them at a considerable savings. The PMRA has placed a deadline of September 30 for the issuance of such permits.

At a time of rising gas prices, escalating costs and low commodity prices, why would the minister take away the opportunity for farmers to purchase products at cheaper prices?

Will the minister ensure that the September 30 deadline is extended at least until the end of October?

[First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act, October 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to Bill C-54, first of all I would like to acknowledge the critical role that Chief Brian Standingready and the White Bear First Nation have played and continue to play in the self-government of White Bear in particular and the first nations in general.

White Bear First Nation, the Blood Tribe and the Siksika First Nation were all part of a pilot project with respect to the co-management of oil and gas on their reserve land as early as 1994. I am proud to say that White Bear is within my constituency. They were the forerunners in the establishment and passage of an act to provide for real property taxation powers which involved a series of different structural organizations and changes that they put together.

The driving force behind that piece of legislation, as in this one, was the economic development of reserves and the improvement of the quality of life. It provided the ability to raise capital and generate revenue. It was an initial step in self-government, in being in charge of one's destiny and being responsible for one's own economic development.

At that time, I said that it was a good step but that there was a much larger journey that must be taken for the first nations to truly arrive at self-government. As Bruce Standingready of the White Bear First Nation put it, “You can only eat an elephant one bite at a time”. Chief Brian Standingready of the White Bear First Nation put it quite correctly when he stated, “If you don't have the jurisdiction, you don't have the ability to make decisions”. With respect to this legislation, he indicated, “This new enabling legislation is recognizing our inherent rights to make our own laws in regard to managing and controlling our oil and gas revenue derived from these sources”.

The bottom line is that not only should first nations have the legislative means to address issues facing first nations on the reserves, but they should also have the financial means to do so. The White Bear First Nation is willing and eager to take charge of its own destiny and to participate in the development and use of its natural resources to better the life of its people

On the reserve there are many basic issues that need to be addressed: housing, infrastructure, water, sewer and electricity. It is important, however, that a good foundation be laid by the legislation to ensure the future success of first nations initiatives.

I support this legislation, as does my party. There are some important features and principles in place that will help in success. They relate to the transfer of moneys held on behalf of first nations and the transfer of the management and regulation of oil and gas exploration and a host of activities related to it.

Let me speak of some of the important features. There is an oil and gas code that provides for accountability of the council to first nations for the management and regulation of exploration and exploitation and the establishment of a procedure for disclosing and addressing conflicts of interest of members of council.

The legislation provides for a financial code, specifying the mode of holding oil and gas moneys, either by deposit in a financial institution or payment to a trust of which the first nation is settlor and sole beneficiary. It prescribes the conditions governing subsequent changes from one mode to another.

The legislation also provides for the manner of expending moneys. It provides for accountability. It addresses procedures for disclosing, as I said, and for addressing conflicts of interests. It also requires that books of account be maintained and annual financial statements be prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. I think these are all good and proper safeguards.

I am somewhat disappointed that the proposed legislation fails to specifically and in advance set out some generic, boilerplate, basic prerequisites that one would expect to find in a trust agreement, not only in terms of the fiduciary duty of the trustees but the specific objects of the trust and the method of spending approval.

However, the legislation does provide for a vote where a majority of those present, not less than 25%, would approve any of the procedures or codes outlined. That in itself provides some safeguards.

Having said that, I see great potential for the first nations, White Bear in particular, in the transfer of moneys and oil and gas rights by giving them an opportunity to chart their own destiny. It seems to me that education, skills training in jobs in various sectors, and management of various forms of business will be a way of ensuring economic prosperity and an acceptable level of quality of life.

There is much to be gained from oil and gas management. As the preamble of the bill states, first nations are able to assume control of their oil and gas industry.

What does that mean in practical terms? It means that first nations can enter into petroleum and natural gas leases, surface leases, easements, rights of way and rights of entry. They can participate in the extraction of oil and gas, in exploration, in production and storage, in distribution and even in processing or refining. There are many associated activities, such as surveying, mapping, test drilling, pipelining and all other related activities that will provide an opportunity for employment.

The White Bear First Nation has experienced some of this in its involvement with Tri Link Resources. It gives it an opportunity to receive a royalty on production and even to participate in oil production. Moneys raised can be placed back into production or used to help the community. It is a great opportunity to create employment, to encourage education and to be trained and employed in the oil industry.

A good example of that was articulated in an article dated May 29, 2000, prepared by Wayne Dunn & Associates, titled, “Experiences and Thoughts on Indigenous Business and Economic Development”. The article, although somewhat dated, provides a little bit of history that the White Bear First Nation has experienced. The article states:

Since White Bear began working with Tri Link, a number of First Nation members have been trained and employed in the oil industry. Tri Link hired two university graduates from White Bear to work in their Calgary office as a petroleum land administration assistant. A summer student was hired to work out of their Kipling office to gain environmental and production experience.

Two White Bear members work out of [White Bear's] office and two members work as Petroleum Land Administrators with the White Bear Pilot Project. These individuals all attended the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology for training sponsored by the White Bear First Nation and received certificates as Petroleum Land Administrators.

Many White Bear First Nation members have gained training and experience in the oil industry thanks to WBOG. So far approximately 38 members have been trained and employed by drilling rigs that are working for Tri Link and four have been trained and are working as contract battery operators. Recently four White Bear members were trained and certified as heavy equipment operators in a program jointly sponsored between Tri Link and the First Nation-run Kakakaway Learning Centre. In the past, the Kakakaway Learning Centre and Tri Link have teamed up to offer training to 30 individuals in the areas of chainsaw certification, chainsaw instructors certification and entry level training such as first aid, CPR and H2S Alive.

As well, the agreement provides White Bear companies and private contractors with the opportunity to bid for services required by Tri Link such as surface lease construction, pipeline construction, seismic line clearing, well site reclamation, trucking, well site maintenance and drilling and service contracting. As a result, seven new businesses have developed on the White Bear First Nation creating new employment opportunities and on-the-job work experience for many First Nation members. These activities have provided over 90 First Nation people with short or long-term employment”.

Part of that in the bill allows this to continue and to be expanded as they take control and management of their own resources. The bottom line in all of this was best stated by Chief Brian Standingready when he said that he “believes it is important that the first nation focuses on helping their people, rather than making profits”. “The oil”, he said, “won't be here forever, our people are our priority. We have to respect the land, our heritage sites, the environment. We always consider the future generations and ask what this is doing for them”.

White Bear in particular has been developing its governance structure in a number of ways. It operates White Bear Lake Resort, the Bear Claw Casino and works in an integrated and cooperative manner with the community of Carlyle, Saskatchewan. With the passing of this legislation, I see the role only increasing into the future. I think it is a good step and is going in the right direction.

I am looking forward to the White Bear First Nation continuing to lead by example, in its industrial expansion and in its involvement in various activities on the reserve, in upgrading the skills of the various participants, in taking part in business, in bringing back some prosperity and putting itself in a position and a place where it can look after some of the very basic needs that it finds facing its community.

[Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, October 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I too will speak to C-363. There is no question that the objective of the bill is laudable in the sense of social housing, providing quality homes and improving the quality of life.

However, the manner in which it proposes to do it is somewhat problematic when one looks at the composition of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Essentially there are two functions to that corporation. One is the insurance and securitization part of CMHC. In that respect it is meant to be a commercial enterprise that competes in the private market with others, like Genworth Financial Canada, that provide mortgage insurance or financial institutions that provide loans.

The other aspect of CMHC relates to assisted housing or social objectives, research and information and international activities.

CMHC's business activities, which are financed from insurance premiums and fees, require it to be competitive in the marketplace. The bill looks at having those fees moved over to social housing.

The other aspect of CMHC, which deals with social housing initiatives like assisted housing, housing repair and improvement, aboriginal capacity programs, Canadian housing market research, emergency planning and so on, is funded by parliamentary appropriations, and rightly so.

Any of those initiatives that CMHC wishes to proceed with would need to go to the Prime Minister, the cabinet and ultimately Parliament for approval. We saw that happen for instance in Bill C-48, although it was ill-conceived and under perhaps trying circumstances. Nonetheless it was a type of bill that dealt with a parliamentary appropriation for a specific purpose and it was debated by the House and all parliamentarians had an opportunity to vote on it.

This bill proposes to have that happen automatically, have it happen without any consultation in Parliament and have it move as the funds develop. When we look at the bill, it indicates that when the ratio of 0.5% of housing loans are attained in terms of profits, they would automatically move to the CMHC reserve fund. At that point, if the reserve fund reached 10% of the equity of the corporation, the funds would automatically get disbursed to the provinces. Although the concept in itself may have some merit in that it is a per capita distribution to provinces, it all together bypasses parliamentary intervention.

The clause as it now reads intends to amend section 29 that establishes a reserve fund. It states that moneys get placed to a reserve fund after taking into account a series of events like bad debts, depreciation and anticipated future losses. We find that some of those are calculable, but the anticipated future losses are dependent in a large part on the economy, on the interest rates and on a whole series of factors. To arbitrarily fix it at 0.5% of the housing loans does not bear a relationship to those factors.

What we have is an independent body, an actuary, that would predict what, in the anticipation of the actuary, ought to be held in reserve to cover potential losses. In my view that is a prudent way to operate. However, in the event we find ourselves in a situation where either the risk that is intended to be covered is over covered or more income is earned than ought to be earned, then perhaps CMHC has charged too much on its commercial side of the business.

No doubt in order for it to be competitive with Genworth or other institutions that are operated privately to provide the same services, it needs to establish a reserve to properly capitalize its assets to ensure if there is an economic turndown that it can cover those losses and it must have a divided of some sort at the end of the day to be profitable. In this case, it would be anticipated these would go to the Receiver General, ultimately to general revenue and disposed of as the House may decide. If we find that CMHC is making too much money or is receiving too much income, we then have to look at those who are paying the moneys into it and who are not receiving the benefit, and they are first time homebuyers.

Currently, to purchase a home at a low of equity ratio of, say, 95%, those loans are insured by CMHC which is insured by the Government of Canada that has a stake in this matter. It can provide housing to first time homebuyers at a very low down payment of 5% in this case. However, they must pay an insurance premium of roughly $2,300 to $2,700 depending on the value of the home. All this goes into the CMHC revenues.

If we find that it is generating too much income, or more than is actuarially sound or more than it needs to, this should be taken into account in the amount that is charged to first-time homebuyers, and there are number of ways of doing that. We could reduce the insurance premium, as has been done the last couple of years, by 15% in each year. We could enhance the benefits of the insurance, as it has with respect to title defects or title defect insurance, whether it relates to unknown easements, or encumbrances or any other defect that might cause a concern to the consumer. There are two ways of dealing with excess revenues.

First time homebuyers should be given every opportunity to acquire a home. Five per cent may even be too much and we should work toward a 0% down payment to encourage people who are unable to get into a home. When we look at first time homebuyers, many of them are young people who do not have a lot of assets or money for down payments. We should look at other ways of arriving at how down payments may be achieved. We need to look at other ways at to reduce what it costs them upfront.

Currently, the CMHC insurance portion is financed through the term of the mortgage, which is 25 years. When we look at a 25-year amortization at current interest rates and an insurance policy of, say, $2,300 or $2,700, it amounts to a lot of money over the term of the mortgage. Profits should be utilized at making a better product, encouraging home buying with less down payment or zero down payment and ensuring that premium rates are low rather than using those moneys to cross-subsidize some other enterprises, such as social housing or any other project.

The minister has reduced the premiums twice now, but perhaps he could reduce them more. He has used the extra funding to waive the premiums on rental buildings in rental projects. He also has put in a program of a 10% reduction if the home is energy efficient or if the home is retrofitted. I worry about that because it is like cross subsidization of an insurance premium for purposes other than for what it was intended.

We would be better served if we operated CMHC as a commercial enterprise with sound commercial practices that could compete with other private sectors on an even keel basis to bring down the rate of insurance that individuals would have to pay.

In respect of social housing programs, it is not the business of CMHC to use commercially generated profits from either the insurance business or from the lending business to make social housing type initiatives. That is something the government as a whole needs to do. It is something that the government would need to project and stand the test of the House and ultimately stand the test of the electorate in the event of an election. It is a policy consideration and that needs to be made at the government level and tested through the public.

There is no question in my mind that these initiatives are important and they need to be proceeded with, but it is something that needs to stand the test of the House and of the public in a general election.

Something like this in Bill C-363 would circumvent all of that. It would arbitrarily assess these moneys to those projects without regard to the circumstances we find ourselves in, without regard to what our future economy may be like and without regard to all the circumstances involved in deciding what should be a safe and proper amount not only in the capitalization of CMHC but in the reserve fund.

[Wage Earner Protection Program Act, September 29th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that I would go on the record and say it is a good first step. In some ways we need to learn how to walk before we can run. We are headed in the right direction. My disappointment is it does not have any sister or companion legislation to deal with unfunded pensions.

My major concern, and it will require some vast consultation in committee, is to deal with the partial super priority status. We have reports throughout saying that super priority status is a bad way to go. To say that we will go with a half a super priority status is still a bad way to go.

The fundamental principles are wrong. It needs to be changed. I will be very vigorously defending and promoting a change to that aspect. It is something that will do an injustice to workers and business. More important, it will do harm to our economy, and it does not need to that. We are able to fund it without imposing it on every businessman across the country, and there are many of them. We are talking about millions of dollars. We cannot hastily say that we will approve the bill because it has some good segments. It has some bad stuff that needs to come out and we will speaking vigorously to that.

[Wage Earner Protection Program Act, September 29th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that we as a country are piling debt on our young people to such a degree that it becomes an impediment to many of them who want to advance. Many of them for reasons, perhaps beyond their own control, are facing bankruptcy. It is unfortunate we have brought them to that. I have a family. I know what it costs to go to school and what it takes to obtain an education.

I am well aware of the fact that there are hardship cases. I agree with my colleague that the periods of 10 years or 7 years are arbitrary. The big issue is the hardship of ensuring that is the case, but even then, why 7 years? Why not 5 years or a shorter period? I am not opposed to seeing that period of time reduced, providing the student can show a hardship case and proper parameters are set so there is no abuse of the system.

Because we have created such a vast indebtedness and because students must rely on loans to the degree they do, we have to be careful that it does not become too easy for them to go to university, get an education and then declare bankruptcy. There must be some preconditions to how that happens. I realize that 10 years, or 7 years or 5 years is a long time. I would be in favour of reducing the period, but at the same time ensuring that the case is legitimate, is compassionate and requires intervention to the degree a bankruptcy would.

[Wage Earner Protection Program Act, September 29th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, it is easy for the government to say that it is sympathetic with the employees who have lost vast sums of money in their pensions, in fact everything they may have saved for the future is wiped out in a bankruptcy. I have to wonder why the government would not address that situation by sister or companion legislation to the worker protection. The worker protection is one segment of it and that segment was added, along with others, into the bankruptcy legislation and the legislation relating to pension protection could just as well have been added to it and dealt with so that this problem does not arise.

How is it that we can have $1 million short in the pension fund or better? How does that happen? How does that arise? Why is there no legislation? This problem is not new. It has existed for a number of years. It may require some tightening up of the pension legislation that would deal with things like ensuring that it is properly inspected and that there are proper audits on a quarterly or regular basis to ensure that it cannot be in a position where it is underfunded to such a significant degree.

I would say that a good start is to ensure that happens, to ensure when there is a collective bargaining agreement and that there are some additions to be made for the pension benefits of a fund that those are put in practice in a realistic manner so that the employees can bank on it or count on it and there is someone policing it. It would not have been so difficult for the government to have added some specific companion pension legislation that would really have protected the worker.

The bill that we see here that has included a segment of worker protection was born or came out of the NDP budget bill. When $100 million was assigned toward worker protection, it was a good start, but it was a government knee-jerk reaction and the bill was put together in haste in an attempt to fulfill that promise. In putting it together in haste to attempt to fulfill the promise, the most the Liberals think they will expend is $30 million to $50 million when they ought to have spent at least $100 million.

That amount is really an insignificant amount when we look at what the government has done to workers. It has taken $45 billion out of moneys that have been contributed by workers and by employers and placed it in general revenues. It was used for general expenses of the country when the moneys have come from workers and employers. Instead, the government has given them, as I said before, one-quarter of one-quarter of 1% of what it had taken and the Liberals said they had done something.

It is a meagre first step and I would expect that the government would review that part of the employer-employee legislation when the bill goes to committee. We are essentially supporting the bill because the workers need some protection and it is a good first step, but when the Liberals previously indicated that they must have balance and that they cannot put liabilities such as the pension liabilities ahead of other secured creditors, how is it that in this particular case they have placed the amount that they pretend to pay to the workers in a super priority status to the extent of $3,000 ahead of secured creditors?

We look at the Liberals' promise to the NDP to give them $100 million. When we break it down, at most it is $30 million to $50 million. Of that $30 million to $50 million, they stand to recover more of that through the super priority status that they have given to themselves.

I agree that the worker needs to have access to whatever money is available on a quick and immediate basis and, to that extent, I think it is feature that we have proposed. In fact in our subcommittee, the Conservative Party were first out of the gate to suggest that there should be a worker protection fund that is funded properly and is easily accessible by the worker to meet the immediate needs of the worker.

However, when we look at this particular case, the Liberals have said that the worker has the option, limited to the extent of $2,000 and $1,000 for disbursements, a total of $3,000, to claim from this fund, and then they must assign their interest in the assets to the Government of Canada, essentially, to pursue the particular assets of the business. The assets they are talking about are accounts receivable that have come by work in progress, inventory or cash on hand.

Eventually, those kinds of assets are not ones that will take years and years to follow. It will take some time but we will have an assurance of some collection where the government will get that back.

The Liberals are not really giving very much to us or to the worker but in its knee-jerk reaction it has probably harmed workers into the future and small business without intending to harm them because they have not looked at the big picture.

They say that our secured transaction in this country works on the basis that when people lend money they want security on their assets and if a business does go bankrupt or bad they can get those assets or that money back. Small businesses, medium sized businesses and large businesses, particularly those that are labour intensive, as our country is in a large measure, need start up funds to start a business. Any business that has 10, 50 or 100 employees, we can rest assured it will be producing a product or goods that will take it 90 to 120 days to get paid and it will build up receivables. However the company needs to start, it needs to have employees and it needs to pay them so it goes to a financial institution and asks for a line of credit.

What do we suppose the bank uses for security for the granting of a line of credit? It uses cash, accounts receivable and inventory, the very things that the government is attempting to take away as secured assets and really take away from small business in order to obtain financing.

It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that if a small businessman goes into the bank to obtain an operating line of credit the first question the bank will ask him now under this legislation is how many employees he has or intends to have. If he says 10 employees at $3,000, that is $30,000 right off the bat that will come off his operating line of credit which is perhaps what a small business needs to stay in business or to start up in the first place. If a businessman has a business with 50 employees times $3,000, that is $150,000 on a cash operation taken without blinking an eye.

What the government has said it will do is take this burden that the workers have to face and place it on, as it says, the bank or secured creditors, but it is not really placing it on the bank or the secured creditors. It is placing it on small business because the banks will certainly protect themselves and will not lend the money. However the small businessman will not be able to start up or even operate a business. Anyone with 100 employees is talking about $300,000 taken out of operation. That is the very kind of dollars that are needed for a business to operate.

I think this particular solution is half-baked, knee-jerked at the expense of small business and the employers and in the end will hurt workers. Surely that is not what we want to achieve.

Our particular submission was, yes, we do need a worker protection fund. Workers do need to be protected but the fund needs to be exactly what it is. It does not need to distribute the burden on those involved in business. It needs to come from either an insurance fund, to which employers and employees contribute, or from general revenues to cover the problem. We need to police it so that the problem does not escalate or happen in the first place. However we do not want to create a bigger problem by half solving another problem, which is what I believe the government has done by the way it has proceeded with this particular measure.

It has been our party's position that we need to strongly look at arriving at a situation where employees can access and be covered for what they have lost. I think there is nothing more important than ensuring that those workers who have invested their energy, their time and who have already performed the labour get paid.

Many of the workers have families, mortgages, car payments and things that are required on an immediate basis. It is on a week to week or bi-weekly or at least monthly basis that they need to have those funds. They cannot go through the protracted legal process of a bankruptcy and wait months and months and sometimes years to get their cash. They need to have easy access.

We support in principle the fact that there needs to be a worker protection fund, that workers need to have easy access to it, but at the same time we do not support the fact that there is a partial super priority status that is placed on secured creditors and ahead of secured creditors, That will simply spell disaster and take many dollars out of our economic business.

In our labour intensive operations, there are companies operating with an operating line of credit. We know the percentage that goes bankrupt will need $30 million to $50 million a year, but the percentage of companies that go bankrupt are very small compared to the number of small businesses that operate across the country. In my community of Estevan, Saskatchewan very few will go bankrupt, but there are many companies. Each of those companies will pay the price for that $30 million or $50 million because they will be unable to get their operating lines of credit.

When we look at the cumulative effect, $300 million in 10 years is into the billions because of the vastness of the operations in Canada. Billions of dollars taken out of our economy from businesses that are able to operate is a travesty on account of a $30 million to $50 million investment. The government needs to rethink its position and the committee needs to look at this aspect very closely before the harm done far outweighs the benefit we are attempting to achieve.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 28th, 2005]

Is there a fourth question?